AG -v- Angwenyi [2010] JRC 102 (27 May 2010)

AG -v- Angwenyi [2010] JRC 102 (27 May 2010)

The caution statement was a mixed statement containing an admission of sexual intercourse, making it admissible as part of the prosecution case. However, since the prosecution elected not to rely on it and the defence conducted its case accordingly, it would be unfair and prejudicial to admit the statement mid-trial.

Citation
[2010] JRC 102
Parties
Defendant: Mr Angwenyi; Prosecution: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
27 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial
Outcome
application rejected
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Rape, Mixed Statements, Self Serving Statements
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Rape Mixed Statements Self Serving Statements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Angwenyi

Defendant

The Crown

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's caution statement is admissible as evidence
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution can adduce the caution statement mid-trial after previously excluding it

Ratio Decidendi

The caution statement was a mixed statement containing an admission of sexual intercourse, making it admissible as part of the prosecution case. However, since the prosecution elected not to rely on it and the defence conducted its case accordingly, it would be unfair and prejudicial to admit the statement mid-trial.

Court Disposition

application rejected

Orders

  • The prosecution's application to admit the caution statement was rejected.